You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Misinformation, Misconceptions, and Covid-19

in #biology2 years ago

Current C-19 death rate according to most recent Stanford antibody study is on the order of 0.1% ... aka... about the same as seasonal flu.

Sort:  

You mean this not yet peer-reviewed study?

I'm not sure about its accuracy, but due to my lack of time to properly get into the methods, I'll not fight that part.

Let's assume they're correct. We still have 210 193 deaths within a little bit over 4 months, and that WITH social distancing. Source

The annual deaths from influenza are on average 389 000, WITHOUT social distancing. Source

Let us assume (and I actually don't believe it) that the death rate is really 0.1% ... we still have a lot more deaths than from influenza.

That aside, it's still deaths? There are still hundreds of thousands of people dying? I get my annual flu vaccine to avoid infecting someone who might die from it. I am worried about the flu! I am even more worried about Covid19, because it's killing more people!

So, I'm not sure what you want to tell me with that comment. That Covid19 is nothing to worry about? It is. That I should not worry more than about influenza? But I should.

Beyond simply deaths, Covid19 also damages survivors a lot more than the flu.

Young and middle-aged people with Covid19 are suffering from an increased number of strokes.

Patients that survive can be left with lung damage.

The virus could be causing neurological damage.

It's not just the death rate we need to worry about, but the bigger picture.

Confirmation bias... it's a study killer.

I mean yes, I just don't see how that statement is relevant here.

All results... including negative results are meaningful.

The peer review process does not guarantee anything. Rather, such process relies heavily on Claimed Authority... the so-called 97% consensus model.

I prefer to the Royal Society:

Nullius in verba

So far, the antibody data from several independent sources are indicating a much larger infection rate. Stanford is just the most recent, but there are other data sets...

So, if the infection rate is an order or two higher than what you've assumed in your paper, what happens to the claim of misinformation?

Please read my first comment again. You will realise that, even though I do not believe the 0.1% death rate, I accepted it for the sake of the argument. People are still dying en masse.

People are still dying en masse

Where?

How many humans die each and every year from the flu?

How many humans who have died when infected with C-19 have Also been infected with some other virus and/or have had significant and many times deadly pre-existing conditions?

Where is the accurate count which shows clearly with scientific certainly that C-19 was the cause of death?

If you don't know... you are assuming and all assumptions are subject to confirmation bias.

I gave you the numbers in my first comment too.

Also, people with pre-existing conditions ... are still people. It's not okay to accept someone's death just because they had an immunodeficiency. It's not okay that someone who was infected with a virus they might have survived dies because they also contracted SARS-CoV-2.

Even if Covid19 only increases the likelihood of someone dying ... that is still an immense problem. If someone would still be alive without contracting the virus, they were still killed by the virus.

And again, I take the flu vaccine every year because too many people die. Bad comparison. Every loss by a preventable disease is a loss.

Also, people with pre-existing conditions ... are still people. It's not okay to accept someone's death just because they had an immunodeficiency. It's not okay that someone who was infected with a virus they might have survived dies because they also contracted SARS-CoV-2.

This is not a scientific argument.

One should not assume that someone who holds an opposing on a particular scientific point is somehow unemotional with regard to any particular issue.

When discussing a science paper, the science should be under discussion... not the morality nor the value judgement one may or may not have with regard to the subject.